Democrats Finally Putting Together a Decent PR Campaign

Although I think they waited a good six months too long. Better late than never. Read on.

"Daddy, Where Do Democrats Come From?"

I'll tell you in a series of four charts. The basis of this post comes from work I've been doing for my Southern Politics course. I've explained to the class how the Republican Party has evolved into a Southern Party over the last twenty years, but I had no visual evidence of this. Well, here's some evidence.

First, we see that over the last twenty years, the Democratic Party actually appears somewhat bipartisan as 48% of its House members were Democratic. That's balance. Especially when we compare the South to New England, where 75% of its members have been Democratic. Conversely, the six Plains states are remarkably Republican, much more so than the South. And, yes, I use the Confederacy to define the South, not the Census Bureau's definition. In my view, if you didn't secede, you're not Southern.



But, this only tells us where Democrats have come from, in the aggregate, over the last 20 years. It's better if we break it down by Congress. In the second graph, we see that New England hasn't always sent 75% of its' delegation to Congress as Democrats. Instead, we see a steady up tick. IN the 101st Congress, New England showed more balance, a 60:40 ration, then a steady upward creep, culminating in 100% of its' delegates being Democratic for the 111th Congress. Conversely, if you look at the dark, red line, the Plains states, you see something different. Perfect balance, then Democrats fall off the cliff in the 104th Congress. This, of course, is when Newt Gingrich-led Republicans regained the majority in the House after forty plus years in the wilderness. The Mountain West and South also severely experimented with Republicanism during this stage, yet the large Black population in the South, kept (and keeps) the South from becoming wholly Republican. The Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and West were never in serious likelihood of becoming Republican. Obviously, if the GOP wants to grow, New England and the Mid-Atlantic are areas of concern; I'd advise the GOP to concentrate on the Midwest and Mountain West.



Still curious, I wanted to know how Southern the Republican caucus had become. But, first, we'll examine the Democratic side. What strikes me when I look at the next chart is the remarkable balance of the Democratic caucus. This might make reaching intraparty deals a difficult proposition, but it's probably better than the Republican alternative, which I'll get to shortly. In the 101st Congress, four different regions (West, South, Midwest and Mid-Atlantic) each provided at least 14% of the Democratic caucus. No one regional delegation clearly dominated. By the 111th Congress, the Democrats (no doubt, thanks Rahm Emanuel's efforts) had achieved even more balance. While the Southern Democratic share shrunk from 30% to 23%m there are still four regions comprising at least 18% of the Democratic caucus and the delegations from New England and and the Mountain West are larger. That's balance.



Now, let's examine the House GOP. First thing I notice is that in the 101st Congress, the Republican Party had commendable balance. Four different regions comprised at least 14% of the Republican House caucus. But, and quite noticeable, is that by the 111th Congress, only three regions comprised that much (South, West and Midwest). The Republican Party reached oblivion in New England (0%) and the Republican delegation from the Mid-Atlantic was cut in half (18% to 9%). What caused this change? The Southernization of the Republican Party. Southerners went from 22% of the GOP caucus to 41% in just twenty years. In so doing, Southerners pushed out New Englanders and those from the Mid-Atlantic.

Book Review of Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny

The bottom line: the Liberal Arts Dude gives a hearty standing ovation to Theresa Amato for writing this book. I give it an enthusiastic five out of five stars! Why the overwhelmingly positive review? Let me explain by illustrating with a story about ordinary people seeking a change to the status quo to something better resembling the promise of democracy.

In more than one occasion in online forums which discuss social and political problems in the U.S., I have observed people say that they are sick of seeing professional politicians pay lip service to reform and solving problems but who, upon closer inspection are ineffective, corrupt, or turn out to be uninterested in reform despite their political rhetoric.

The disgruntled citizen then offers him or herself as a viable alternative to the status quo and announces his or her intentions to “throw the bums out” by running for office. The citizen seeks to prove that an honest and concerned citizen can do much better at cleaning up American politics than the traditional, professional politician.

For every concerned citizen who has ever felt this way and are serious on a run for electoral office I suggest very strongly that they first read Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny. This book should be required reading for those who seek to make a difference in American society and who aims to make that difference by using political office as a vehicle for social and political change.

I would even assert that every concerned citizen should read this book as a guide to where the roots of the problems lie and to distinguish real, effective reform efforts from non-issues that sidetrack reformers and which distract from what truly needs to be done to reform American politics.

The book, in large part, is an exhaustively-researched and documented chronicle of the pitfalls, traps, lopsided and unfair rules and regulations, legal and procedural hurdles in the American system of running for political office for those who operate outside the traditional major parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

Grand Illusion will strip away any illusions the average, civic-minded citizen might have about the notion of fair play, fairness, efficiency and ease of participation for political outsiders in American politics. In fact, the author puts to question the oft-boasted claim of traditional politicians that America is a shining beacon of democracy, that it values democratic practices and does its utmost to encourage democratic participation among as many and as wide a range of individuals among its citizens as possible.

In reality, the author Theresa Amato argues that the rules for political participation are lopsided overwhelmingly in favor of the two major parties. Third parties and independents are at a distinct disadvantage by design of the two major parties who govern and make up the rules for political participation in the U.S.

From rules surrounding ballot access, signature requirements for candidates to get on the ballot, redistricting rules which favor incumbency, control of the governing bodies which make up the rules for elections (the Federal Election Commission and Congress) to who gets to participate in televised debates the major parties have made it so onerous, financially expensive, and a nightmare to navigate the byzantine bureaucracy of the political process. These processes of course, largely exempt candidates from the two major parties.

Thus, just starting out of the gate, third and minor parties and independents—most likely cash and resource-strapped shoestring operations already—are very much at a disadvantage. And this is just to enter the ring.

Amato also describes in great detail—using the Ralph Nader 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns that she headed as case studies—what happens when a third party or independent candidate presents a legitimate challenge to the two major parties. She presents in mind-numbing detail the outrageous and dirty tactics the Nader campaign experienced largely in the hands of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic party sought to prevent the Nader campaign from getting into the ballot in as many states nationwide as possible. To make this happen they initiated a campaign of harassment, intimidation of campaign volunteers, sabotage, outright threats and even bribery. Most outrageous and maddening were Amato’s description of the Democrats’ strategy of tying up the Nader campaign’s resources, time and energies in expensive litigation and lawsuits.

More than just a disgruntled person with an axe to grind, Amato is a practicing lawyer and activist who is deeply knowledgeable about the strategies needed to fix the flaws of the political system. To this end she details nine important court cases that need to be revisited at the Supreme Court level in Chapter 5.

In addition, in the Conclusion, among the many great ideas for reform she proposes are:

• eliminating the Electoral College


• consider adopting alternative methods of voting which remove the spoiler factor in voting for third parties and independents such as Instant Runoff Voting


• add an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution


• Federalize Federal elections


• adding third-party and independent representatives in the Federal Elections Commission and the Election Assistance Commission to make them truly non-partisan


• federal financing for federal elections


• free airtime for all candidates regardless of political party


• rewarding low-donor campaigns or PACs


• adding proportional representation at the federal, state and local levels to make them more participatory


• Adopt a binding NOTA (none of the above) option in elections


• The Commission on Presidential Debates should be reconstituted as a nonpartisan entity


• Move Election Day to the weekend to encourage greater participation


• Remove administration of federal elections from partisan secretaries of state, state election boards or their subsidiaries


• A permanent, national registration of voters

Regardless of how you feel about Ralph Nader, third parties, and whether or not you consider yourself an independent, Grand Illusion is a book that is, first and foremost, about the practice and procedures regarding democratic participation.

Yes, the book is largely, about democratic participation among those who are marginalized in American politics—those most likely to go against the grain and take on public stands on controversial topics which need to be addressed in the public sphere but the two major parties are reluctant to touch.

But if you believe that in a democracy, that every vote should count, that people should be given a wide spectrum of political options that truly reflect their beliefs and values, and that society should encourage, support and reward political participation and civic-mindedness among its citizens, Grand Illusion is a book that you should read.

The book largely outlines how American society and government in modern times largely fails to live up to the promise and ideals of participatory democracy. But if you care about such matters you owe it to yourself to shake up your perspective of the stability, fairness, and essential benevolence of the American political system. Once your equilibrium has been disturbed by this book hopefully it will spur you into seeking out and joining with the reformers who seek to turn to practical reality the ideals of democracy and democratic participation.

The Political Outsiders Part II: Progressive Democrats

I recommend reading a couple of books and a blog post to get a good background on the insurgency within the Democratic Party by Progressive grassroots activists.

- Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

- Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era

- MRZine: Guide to Democratic Party and the Democrats

Both books make the point that Internet and advances in social media technology have the capacity to empower ordinary people who have felt powerless and shut out of the political process to effective political participation. More than that, they have a potential to and in many cases, have had real impact in challenging and toppling entrenched interests in the Democratic Party and in traditional two-party politics. The blog post provides context on where this Progressive insurgency fits within the various groupings of the Democratic Party.

Just who are these Progressive insurgents? These are regular readers and contributors to blogs such as Open Left, Daily Kos, MyDD and Firedoglake. They attend conferences such as the Netroots Nation and America’s Future Now (formerly Take Back America). They are members of political organizations such as Progressive Majority, MoveOn and Democracy for America. They have trained or taken part in seminars offered by the New Organizing Institute (NOI) in Washington, DC or Wellstone Action in Minnesota. For political jobs they peruse listings and professional development opportunities for activists and organizers in the NOI and Democratic GAIN job boards. While not an exhaustive list the examples I cited give a scope of participation by grassroots Progressives in various capacities.

I find myself extremely impressed by the breadth of activities and membership associations that I described above. They seem to suggest—dare I say it?—an actual, attempt to form a bona fide political opposition movement to challenge not only the influence of the powerful right wing but the right wing from within the Democratic Party as well. In lurking at Progressive blogs and mingling with people from within this movement in person in Washington, DC, the phrase “movement-building” is a phrase that I have overheard being used. More than just cocktail party chatter, the breadth of existing organizations and activists suggest people are actually doing it and taking organizing seriously.

Are there critical things to say about this movement? My review of the book Taking on the System sums up what I have to say that is critical:

My questions for Zuniga — and I am still speaking as a Progressive here — what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

Conclusion

From the perspective of this Progressive Independent, there is a lot of positive to say about this Progressive insurgency. Not only do they represent a revitalized Progressive movement, they also represent the first, wide-ranging organizing effort among Progressives to actually organize ordinary folks into becoming effective activists and participants in small “d” democracy. I’m a believer in grassroots, populist, power to the people, up from the bottom philosophies. The Progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party is an example of such a movement. Hence, these grassroots activists deserve kudos and respect in my book.

If there are critical things to say in my perspective, it would have to be the movement’s narrow focus on the Democratic Party and electoral politics as the primary strategy to realize Progressive goals. I am a believer of what political scientist Adolph Reed has to say regarding Progressives hitching their hopes solely on the Democratic Party. I also believe that a Progressive political movement has to be larger than any political party and would have to be inclusive of people who are outside of the two major parties—independents, third and minor parties, the Left, etc.

But this Democratic Party insurgency is a great start and I can’t wait to see how American politics will be re-shaped in the future as a direct result of their efforts.

• Part I of the series

Book Review: Taking On the System

Taking On the System: Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga contains a very big contradiction. He set out to write a “Rules for Radicals” for the Internet Age -- a practical guidebook on how ordinary people who are not political or media insiders can use the power of social media and the Internet, combined with their own passion, ingenuity, creativity and beliefs, to influence the political process and win battles to promote the Progressive cause. His book, therefore, first and foremost, was a paean to small “d” democracy -- the power and potential for ordinary, average people to participate in a meaningful way in American politics.

Yet, Zuniga frames democratic participation in the book exclusively along the lines of how to influence the political process as Democrats. His case studies of political success stories primarily illustrate insurgent political activity within the Democratic Party (Jim Webb’s Senate candidacy and victory in Virginia, Ned Lamont’s challenge to Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, the electoral defeat in Virginia and political downfall of George “Macaca” Allen, Carol Shea-Porter’s inspiring victory against all odds for a House seat in New Hampshire). I thought to myself this seems to be a very narrow view of democratic participation. The book, when it mentions it at all, does not have a high regard and is dismissive about activism among people who do not consider themselves Democrats.

Zuniga’s perspective comes from his admiration for the practical, common-sense principles of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

“We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy… It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that political revolution can survive without the supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.”

Zuniga’s focus on the Democratic Party, therefore, seems to be an acknowledgement of the reality of the dominance of the two-party system in American politics. Zuniga’s focus is to work within that framework to be able to advance Progressive principles and goals. To do otherwise -- try to change the System as an outsider (via a third party or as an independent) -- will only relegate one to the political wilderness where one’s efforts, no matter how well-meaning, will be marginalized and largely ineffective. Progressives in America -- if they want to be effective --, therefore, should join the ongoing battle within the Democratic Party (and there is a battle going on) between the corporate-friendly DLC wing of the party and the insurgent, Progressive Netroots.

The contradiction becomes obvious at this point. Originally written as a guidebook for political outsiders to take on and influence the System, the book urges one to become a political insider and be part of the System. Register as a Democrat, support Democratic candidates, elect Democratic politicians to office, for Zuniga, is the primary and most effective way to “take on the System.” To be fair, he urges Progressives to support Progressive and populist Democrats. But still, this contradiction is jarring to me.

I can’t refute the reality of the entrenched two-party system and the practicality of working within its parameters. I also can’t refute the very real fact that third parties and independents function largely in the margins of American politics and have not gained traction in recent years to become viable as the political opposition. Even outsider electoral reform efforts such as the programs by FairVote (Instant Runoff Voting, the National Popular Vote) require the cooperation and support of elected politicians and hence, cannot afford to be marginal and to function outside of the mainstream.

At this point, it would be very easy for me to dismiss Zuniga’s book as not being very radical after all and not really a guidebook for political outsiders. I can rail at his theses as being misleading and perhaps even imply that the book is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy designed to negate the burgeoning dissatisfaction most Americans have with BOTH major parties (by asserting that the answer to that dissatisfaction is more support for the Democratic Party). But that would do a great disservice to his reality-based argument.

Zuniga says:

“We live in a world where there is no reason anyone should whine or complain that they are being shut out of the system. The tools are available to mount credible challenges to even the most entrenched of powers. Such efforts will always lack resources, and will mostly face well-funded, deeply entrenched foes, but innovative tactics and smart use of money can carry the day. (p. 240)”

My questions for Zuniga -- and I am still speaking as a Progressive here -- what if I am not a Democrat and don’t want to be one? Nothing against Democrats but what if I disagree with the strategy of electing Democrats into office as the primary way to define victory in the fight for Progressive politics? What if I adhere to beliefs and political positions that just don’t jibe with mainstream Democratic policies? Is there room for someone like me to make an impact in small “d” democracy in America or should I just resign myself to being in the fringes, marginal and irrelevant?

After all, being a Progressive within the Democratic Party seems to be no great shakes either. We’ve all seen how politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Progressive perspectives on foreign policy, trade, domestic policy, healthcare, etc. pretty much are marginalized in the Democratic Party. Even in newly-elected President’s Barack Obama’s administration, Progressives are outnumbered and outgunned in his cabinet appointments which are populated primarily by the DLC, corporate-friendly Democrats.

To be clear, I will support Progressive Democrats and I am 100% supportive of their efforts to transform the Democratic Party into a more inclusive, populist and Progressive political party. The bottom line for me, however, is although I found a lot to agree with in Zuniga’s book, I didn’t find that it spoke to me as a political outsider -- an independent Progressive. It didn’t answer my burning questions on how people like me can play a role in American politics other than as marginalized spectators.

All in all the Liberal Arts Dude gives Taking On the System four out of five stars. It would have gotten the full five stars if it provided better answers to my burning questions. But I found the book thought–provoking and that it generated a lot of introspection in me which led me to examine my own motivations for political participation.

Beltway Centrism and the New Administration

Thomas "What's the Matter with Kansas" Frank, from the Wall Street Journal:

Centrism is something of a cult here in Washington, D.C., and a more specious superstition you never saw. Its adherents pretend to worship at the altar of the great American middle, but in fact they stick closely to a very particular view of events regardless of what the public says it wants...

Yet what the Beltway centrist characteristically longs for is not so much to transcend politics but to close off debate on the grounds that he -- and the vast silent middle for which he stands -- knows beyond question what is to be done...

As this should remind us, the real-world function of Beltway centrism has not been to wage high-minded war against "both extremes" but to fight specifically against the economic and foreign policies of liberalism. Centrism's institutional triumphs have been won mainly if not entirely within the Democratic Party. Its greatest exponent, President Bill Clinton, persistently used his own movement as a foil in his great game of triangulation.

And centrism's achievements? Well, there's Nafta, which proved Democrats could stand up to labor. There's the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. There's the Iraq war resolution, approved by numerous Democrats in brave defiance of their party's left. Triumphs all.

That's why it is so obviously preferable to be part of the movement that doesn't compromise easily than to depend on the one that has developed a cult of the almighty center. Even a conservative as ham-handed as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay seems to understand this.

As he recounted in his 2007 memoirs, Republicans under his leadership learned "to start every policy initiative from as far to the political right as we could." The effect was to "move the center farther to the right," drawing the triangulating Clinton along with it.

President-elect Obama can learn something from Mr. DeLay's confession: Centrism is a chump's game. Democrats have massive majorities these days not because they waffle hither and yon but because their historic principles have been vindicated by events. This is their moment. Let the other side do the triangulating.

McCain Has 10 Point Lead Over Obama

McCain over Obama 54% to 44%


John McCain is crushing Obama in the latest USA Today Gallup Poll. Among registered voters likely to vote in November, McCain leads Obama 54% to 44%.

Democrats are panicking. I have to laugh to avoid crying. But this is what I have been foreseeing for years. It's amazing that Democrats are now scrambling to figure out what is going on... when all they have to do is look at their Party and get a better understanding of the American voter. Democrats don't have much of a clue regarding either. And now they are once again standing at the edge of a cliff.

Everything is pointing in the direction of the Democrats this election year, yet they are fighting for their political lives in the Presidential race. Why?

I don't put much stock in National polls, since the General election is about 50 separate and unequal elections...all rigged and caged in different ways. However, when gaps are this wide in national polling it could spell trouble for the candidate with the lower numbers. Sure the Republican Convention is responsible for much of McCain's gain. However, that is probably not the only thing leading to the rapidly changing numbers. Voters have been successfully fooled by Republicans on the issue of domestic energy exploration (drilling). The "Drill Baby Drill" mantra was effective. Elementary...but effective just the same. Democrats have not been able to untangle the lies from the Republican misinformation campaign on this issue or on any other big issue for that matter.

The Dems could have preempted this (since they had to know this would be the Republican strategy) by conducting a massive voter education campaign about energy...informing voters of the Democratic Plan which is much more robust and comprehensive, and will create true energy self sufficiency, as opposed to the Republican proposal. Democrats could have used radio and TV ads, Televised Town Hall events, flyers & posters, and other means to explain to voters that domestic drilling would only be a win for the oil companies, and not the American consumer...and that it would take 10 years to get any relief and even then it would be financially insignificant. I heard an NPR report just today, where a bubba-like character (a McCain supporter) repeated the misinformation that drilling in Alaska would immediately lead to cheaper gas prices.

The McCain campaign advisers were correct last week when they mentioned that this election was not about the issues. They were absolutely right. And this is what Democrats don't seem to understand. I have been screaming this for years now (since the late 1990's). These elections are rarely about issues. They have not been about issues for a long time. These elections are about personality.

The American electorate is not very educated or informed when it comes to the issues. The vast majority of Americans are not issues voters. The average American voter would flunk an "issues" exam, as well as a foreign policy or geography test.

That's not how they vote! This is why Republicans use lies and distortions to try to fool voters- Because it has a track record of working in this Country. They know voters are not very knowledgeable about what the Hell is going on. The McCain campaign understands it and they are exploiting it for maximum effect. They figure, if they repeat the lies enough times.... folks will start to believe them and take them to heart. And it works! American voters fall for Republican games over and over again. Republicans have become masters at manufacturing their own reality and getting voters to eat it right out of their hands like sheep.

And since Republicans/Conservatives control large segments of the American media infrastructure, they are allowed to tell their side (to distort and lie) unimpeded. Establishing a media infrastructure is something that the Democrats still don't understand. This is one of the greatest failings of Democrats and Progressives in this Country...and it is a key reason why the Democrats lose big elections.

Republicans are much better when it comes to vision and strategy - not for helping the American people... they don't care about that. I'm referring to vision and strategy for winning elections and building the infrastructure to keep winning. They also tend to field candidates that Americans are most comfortable with... not necessarily the best candidate, but the candidate who best relates to the typical, White voter.

To add insult to injury, the Democrats decided to put forward what is basically an unelectable...or very difficult to elect candidate (as they so often do...Mondale, Dukakis, etc). Not that he is not a better candidate... he clearly is. But he is not someone who most White voters will support... not in a General Election- as I have mentioned so many times.

Another key mission for Democrats in the future (as I have mentioned many times) is voter education... educating the public about what is going on. This has to happen at the Middle and High School level and has to continue from there. Unfortunately the Democrats do not have an infrastructure that can take on a task this large. Voter education doesn't mean teaching voters how to vote...how to pull the lever. They know that already. Certainly that kind of education should be a part of any program. But what I am talking about is much more comprehensive, and includes adding certain things to the Middle and High School curriculum... such as Civic Studies, International/global affairs programs, Foreign cultures and religions, U.S. Politics and Current Events, International Politics, intense American government courses, Foreign policy studies, better World geography programs, etc. Americans should have a better grasp of events both at home and overseas...and they must have a seed planted in their minds that will keep them interested in domestic and world events and politics long after they leave secondary school. Once Americans are taught to be more inquisitive, we will have a more informed electorate (better not just for Americans, but for the entire World).

If the Democrats lose this time around it will be because they did not put forward the best "electable" candidate possible, still don't control their own message due to a lack of media parity, and as a Party they don't know their heads from their backsides.

Months ago, in my message titled "Obama's Fading Hope: America May Be Too Sick To Elect A Black Man For President", I pointed out many of these problems and described what the Republican angle might be in this campaign. And the Race factor can't be ignored. I still believe that this year wasn't the best time for a social experiment... that too much is at stake. I will believe that regardless of whether Obama wins or loses. I will always believe that it was too big of a gamble.

And this "take the high road" game that Obama is playing is a losing one. It's the same game that John Kerry played back in 2004... That may have worked in this country 30 years ago, but it doesn't fly today. Voters want to know how well you can fight for your position or if you're willing to fight for it at all. If it gets a little ugly, that is fine with them. It's a new Demographic. Kerry assumed that voters would respond to his "Shining City on a Hill" imitation of Reagan... again, another example of a Democrat imitating a Republican. That's part of Obama's problem right now - trying to be the "Shining City on a Hill Candidate". But voters don't respond to that in a big way. You saw the two dog and pony show Conventions. Voters hardly responded to Obama's staged grand celebration that unnecessarily wasted God knows how much money and resources. It ended up being a wash for Obama. He would have been better off in an arena- it would have been more intense and more intimate. But voters DID respond to the hate and vitriol spewed by the Republicans. Again... it shows how Obama and the Democrats don't understand American voters in terms of voting behavior, what they respond to, etc. Instead of avoiding the mistakes of 2004, Obama is attempting to provide a sequel for John Kerry's failed candidacy. Having a toned down (issues instead of attacks) Convention with no spark was a strategic blunder on the part of the Democrats.

That being said, I hope that Obama can pull off another miracle. But the task won't be easy. (see my posts "Obama's Fading Hope", and "Obama's uphill climb" where I pretty much predicted a tough time for Obama...in an election year that should be an easy win for a Democrat).

ONN Report Offers Most Honest Analysis of Election Season Yet :)

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

See, i'm not all gloom and doom. Only when it involves Hillary Clinton, when I think about the direction of the Country, or when it comes to the Republicans & their smear machine. They can suck the life and the hope out of just about anything.

P.S.

May 6th, could be the end of the hostage standoff (Hillary Clinton holding the nation hostage that is), as I had predicted several weeks ago. Whether she gives up then or not may not matter. If she loses both N. Carolina and Indiana on the same night it could be a crushing blow in terms of momentum and could send a message to Superdelegates to make a decisive move to avoid a disaster at the Convention. It would take a very strange miracle for her to win after that. For Clinton to stay in the race after that point can only be seen as malicious....an attempt to do harm to Obama in the General Election. Of course, she has already done this...but after May 6th, it will be as clear as day. But Obama has to somehow win Indiana... a daunting task after the massive Swiftboat attacks.

Hillary The Beast Clinton will easily win West Virginia and Kentucky after her racist campaign efforts and her fearmongering aimed at White blue collar voters. Obama may come back & do well in Oregon (still an unknown...Oregon seemed like a lock for Obama a couple of months ago...but that was before the Swiftboating & race baiting kicked into high gear). The Caucus States of South Dakota and Montana are numerically insignificant either way (Sorry Montana & S. Dakota, lol). Clinton may actually win those Caucuses due to the changing dynamics of the past 6 weeks. But Obama's delegate lead should be big enough to blunt a Clinton win in Puerto Rico.

If I were Obama... I would publicly offer Clinton a 45%-55% split on Michigan and Florida. That would be hard for her to refuse. That would probably earn Obama the nomination outright. It would put Clinton in an awkward & almost impossible position. If she says no... she looks like an ass to the World and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell. If she accepts, she allows Obama to have a clear victory, and all of her arguments would be shot to Hell.

Obama’s Fading “Hope“: America May Be Too Sick To Elect a Black Man For President

Obama appears to be damaged goods, and may be done. You could probably stick a fork in him at this point. Or does he have enough miracles left to overcome the nations attempt to swiftboat his campaign? And yes…this has now become more of a national effort. Everyone seems to be getting in on the act.

That's one of the many reasons why I lost interest in this circus filled election season.

Hillary's race baiting campaign has done serious damage to Obama and his hopes for the nomination, especially in the context of the General Election. Even if Obama somehow stops the bleeding enough to win the nomination, the General (s)election will be a different story. Obama will have to garner a broader range of support in the General Election as compared to the Democratic nomination contest...and it's going to be a steeper hill for him to climb in the General to accomplish that mission.

Clinton has taken race, Rev. Wright, etc...& has tied it around Obama's neck with a ball & chain. It is going to weigh on him not only for the remainder of his campaign...but for the rest of his political career. Obama was naive to think that his attempts to run a race neutral campaign would somehow stop Whites from attacking him using race, ethnicity, and religion as weapons. They simply couldn’t resist. Obama was essentially put in a situation where he had to apologize for being Black. And people wonder why I hate being a Black man? I don’t know of any other ethnic group in this Country that has to apologize to the wider society for their race…..or has to apologize for comments made by other members of their ethnic group, the way that Obama had to. These developments have been breathtaking, although not surprising to me considering we live in one of the most racist Countries in the World. But this is why I had to step back from politics…the madness was becoming too absurd to tolerate.

I never thought that either Clinton or Obama were very electable from the beginning.... and now they are even more unelectable... That is especially the case for Obama.
Everything that I had predicted earlier on seems to be materializing. The media has duped Democrats (by steering voters like sheep) into nominating two marginal candidates....and by playing up issues of race, etc. And it has been all about ratings for the networks the whole time (from the time that the Obama/Clinton matchup was first introduced and played up as a possibility 2 & 1/2 to 3 years ago until today).

An example of the damage done to Obama can be seen in polling data...and it is showing in a big way. Whether it holds or not remains to be seen...but the negative results seem to be holding a month after the Rev. Wright nonsense. Obama had been leading by wide margins in Indiana on a consistent basis over several weeks. But after the negative racist gutter politics of Clinton.... the poll in Indiana has flipped the opposite way...with Clinton now enjoying a nice lead; although Obama has been able to improve his standing in Indiana in the last few days. There was an initial swing of about 15-20 points from Obama to Clinton within the span of two weeks. As if that’s not bad enough, new polling from Puerto Rico shows that Clinton enjoys a healthy double digit lead there as well. I was a little surprised by the Puerto Rico poll considering the rocky relationship between the Clinton administration and the island in the late 1990’s.

But Hillary’s support among blue collar White voters in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania says a lot about the impact of playing on the fears of White Americans, xenophobic Whites in particular. Hillary always had race as a built-in advantage.

At the end of the day... I don't believe that Obama is electable in a General Election....and he probably won't win. He may not even win the Democratic nomination now that Florida and Michigan are probably out of the picture (at least for now). This will leave the decision to the so-called Superdelegates. Losing the nomination may be an act of mercy for Obama and his followers. Some polling is beginning to show that voters would support McCain over Obama...and Clinton over McCain in key matchups (again...Hillary Clinton’s dirty racist campaign has started to pay off). Clinton is likely to finish strong in the remaining contests on the back of her race baiting & scorched earth campaign...and this may make the Supercrooks... or the "Superdelegates" doubt Obama's chances.

To put it plainly....America is too sick to elect a Black candidate to the Presidency of the United States. Sick meaning- too racist, xenophobic, ignorant about politics & basic civics, ignorant about Democracy, nationalistic, controlled by fear, manipulated by the media, uninformed about other cultures & the experiences of others within the borders of this Country...let alone in Countries thousands of miles away, blind about religion.... Etc. And this is essentially why I am noticing that the vultures are starting to gather for Barack Obama…waiting for a nice meal from the political remains of a man who started out with grand hopes but was soon consumed by the disease that is American Politics….a disease fed by a twisted social culture. In some ways, America is as sick today as it was 40 and 50 years ago. And Hope was never going to change that in my opinion. This is why I always said that Obama needed more than Hope to win the nomination and a General Election… I knew that he would face this racist onslaught. He needed a kick ass, cut throat campaign staff that wouldn’t take any bull……but this is something that Obama doesn’t seem to have unfortunately. To say that David Axelrod has been a wimp may be an understatement.

In the end, race & how comfortable voters personally would feel having a beer or having dinner with a particular candidate may prove more important than the candidates positions on actual issues. In American elections... this personal "feel good" test tends to carry the day over all else. This is what American elections have come down to....and it has been this way for quite some time. Whites will always be more comfortable with candidates who look like them, despite the fact that they may actually have more in common as Americans with the minority candidate (the guy who is barely a millionaire…and a fairly new member of that group). This phenomenon is part of the reason why George W. Bush still won re-election despite losing 3 straight debates to the cosmopolitan guy from the Northeast. Rural White Americans preferred George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan because of how well these men wore their boots and their cowboy hats...more than any plan they offered or policy that they supported. We are seeing a similar situation with Obama, and his ethnicity highlights this phenomenon that much more.

Americans consistently vote against their own best interests, even in election years when they claim to want change. If you recall….2004 was a “change” election year…but when it came down to voting, Americans chose the same cast of characters….largely out of fear and because of the impulse to choose the familiar. The same thing is happening in this election cycle. Americans will likely choose what is familiar and “safe”. Choosing something different requires voters to put in more work….requires them to think more…requires them to have a grasp of the issues. But for many voters, this is too hard, and they look for any excuse to pull back and retreat to their old patterns of choosing the most familiar. This is how issues like Gay marriage, guns (I am pro-gun by the way), religion, immigration, war, race and class, often trump more pressing everyday issues that all voters should be concerned with. This is partly what Obama was getting at when he made the comments about small town America. But he wasn’t blunt enough with his comments. If he could have gotten away with it, what he should have mentioned was the fact that race and racial prejudice are working against him in many parts of rural America, and rural Pennsylvania and Indiana especially. That’s what he wanted to say but couldn’t. Xenophobia and racism are huge issues in this campaign. And the fear mongering from Clinton and McCain are a testament to that fact. If these were not big issues, then Clinton & the Conservatives would not be working so hard to highlight and exploit racial & social differences for political advantage.

It is amazing how the media has been able to twist Obama’s comments around to have a completely different meaning or connotation than what was intended. Hillary Clinton is allowed to tell one bold faced lie after another with very few lasting consequences, yet Obama is vilified repeatedly for telling the truth. Obama is attacked relentlessly for comments that he didn’t even make regarding his former Pastor, or for comments made by the obscure Louis Farrakhan (support that Obama never sought & comments that he probably didn’t know about ahead of time) yet the media does nothing to hold John McCain accountable for actually seeking and accepting the endorsement of a known bigot and religious hate monger John Hagee. This is why I get the urge to strangle those who say there is no media bias in favor of these rich white candidates. Clinton in particular has had the media advantage from the beginning, long before she even declared her candidacy.

The media tries to create its own reality in order to boost ratings. They desperately want the Obama comments to be overblown into a huge new controversy. Even though a CNN Poll out today showed that 76% of viewers did not find Obama’s comments offensive at all. A majority were actually in agreement with Sen. Obama. Yet the corporate media continues to twist his words and then overplay those twisted words, hoping to influence voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere who may not keep up with the daily news and who would therefore be ripe candidates for this kind of manipulation. Meanwhile, while this manufactured news is being promoted, the media seems to ignore actual confirmed news surrounding Clinton’s chief strategist Mark Penn, and his support of a Columbian Trade deal, while she is in Pennsylvania slamming such deals. It’s the same kind of disingenuous behavior that we saw from Clinton in Ohio and that we have seen throughout her campaign.

What really bothers me is the assertion by Clinton and McCain that Obama is some sort of elitist and is out of touch. This is coming from a woman who reported making over $100 million dollars, and has been the biggest recipient of corporate lobbying money out of all of the candidates. This is also the same woman who has been in the White House, in Governors mansions and in corporate board rooms for upwards of 35 years straight. This is the same woman who defended corporations against consumers and even defended a wife beater in a brutal domestic violence case when she was a hotshot attorney, as a way to promote her career. And now she claims to be a feminist. Give us a break Hillary! And John McCain is not far behind. His entire campaign is virtually run by lobbyists. But Obama is the elitist? A man who started out in a job that paid about $15,000 a year and wasn’t born into wealth. A man raised by a single mother. A man who lived on Food Stamps as a kid and doesn’t know what it feels like to have $100 million.

If that’s not bad enough, Hillary is now claiming to be Annie Oakley…a pro-gun politician. Unfortunately Americans have a very short memory and will fall for that unmitigated foolishness. Those of us who have been paying attention know about the war on guns that the Clintons waged in the 1990’s. Now she wants gullible voters to believe that she is actually pro-gun. It’s another chameleon act by Clinton…. changing her colors to fit the current environment. We saw the same nonsense with NAFTA. And there have been similar embellishments in terms of her foreign policy (3am crisis) experience….which all turned out to be a very large bucket of Bull.

The media circus of the past 2 months has taken both Democratic Party candidates off of more meaningful topics, such as what they plan to do to save social security, what they plan to do about healthcare, what they plan to do about climate change and the environment, what they plan to do about energy independence & getting gas prices under control, what they plan to do to create jobs and to make the U.S. more competitive in the new global economy, what they plan to do about the cost of living and stagnant wages, what they plan to do about corruption in Washington D.C., what they plan to do to repair U.S. relations with the rest of the World, what they plan to do about the growing racial and social class rift (the new emerging caste system in this Country), what they plan to do about the cost of higher education and out of control student loan burdens, and the list goes on & on. I have not heard anything over the past several weeks about substantive policies and plans of the respective candidates. I have only been bombarded with replay after replay of the latest trivial comments from one of the 3 Senators.

We have entered an era where we can now count on good people to be swift boated, no matter how good their message might be. The new tradition calls for election seasons that are turned into pure entertainment. Americans, fed by the corporate media machine, sit around to see who has made the latest gaffe, rather than seeking meaningful substantive information. This is why the American electorate tends to be less informed than voters in other Democracies. We are becoming a "gaffe" and 10 second soundbite culture. This, in part, is what will decide elections from here on out. Meanwhile, the same cast of characters will win elections over and over again, and nothing will change for ordinary Americans. The Well of American politics is now permanently contaminated. If JFK were to run for the office of President today, even he would be swift boated. So we as a nation are in this perpetual funk, and I don’t see how the cycle will be broken. As long as the nation has a corrupt Two- Party system that is controlled by big money, a largely disengaged uninformed public, and a corporate media that controls & shapes almost all public opinion, then nothing significant will change in the lives of ordinary Americans. Fear, ignorance, racism and xenophobia will continue to rule the day. Only a reformed, regulated political system with a real multi-party Democracy (more than 2 major Parties) will be able to change the status quo. Americans make up one of the most ill-informed and manipulated electorates of any modern nation on the planet, which is why we will be dealing with this kind of nonsense for the foreseeable future.

The Obama experiment, so far, is proving that despite all of the Senators attempts to run a race neutral campaign and to represent a new generation of minority politicians who want to transcend skin color, White America still could not resist using race as a weapon against him. Thus America is once again failing to move beyond its racist past. This will insure that America will remain one of the Neanderthals in the community of nations. Technologically and economically strong…sure. But socially, it is still too sick to move ahead…still stuck 2-3 generations behind.

I'm quickly moving towards a "shelter in place" bunker mentality.... more of a survivalist mode... gathering everything that I need for "SHTF Day" (whenever that day comes)...when the House burns down. That includes clinging to my guns, just like Whites in small town America. I am realizing that I can do nothing to stop the inevitable demise of this country.... that an Empire descending from grace is just a natural thing...and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. I can do nothing to impact (not in a meaningful or significant way) the politics of this Country... especially in a Country where there is no real Democracy to speak of. Yes, my cynicism has returned….in fact, it never went anywhere. I have always been cynical and skeptical. This Country has not given me any reason to be otherwise. And it’s not a blind cynicism….it is a justified cynicism.

One positive that could come out of a Democratic defeat in November….sort of a silver lining to the dark storm cloud of a McCain victory… is that such a Democratic defeat may be what the Country needs. It wouldn’t be a completely negative experience. Perhaps this would be the spark that the Democratic Party would need to finally implode, which would be a good thing, forcing the Party to clean house from top to bottom, starting with Howard Dean. Perhaps this would cause the Party to refocus its vision, mission, and strategy for the future. The current cast of characters give me nothing to be excited about.

But those changes would only be superficial. What we really need is a complete fundamental overhaul of the entire political system in this Country. I know… not likely, but that’s the only way to restore public confidence in politics. There has to be a change in the way that the nation chooses Presidents and other elected officials. Public financing of campaigns, where all candidates are on a level playing field, and enjoy a truly impartial media, is the only fair framework for future elections. Maybe a Democratic loss could convince enough people (fed up Democrats and independents) to form a separate political Party. And I would love to see Conservatives and Moderates do the same. Both Parties should split into 2 or 3 different groups in my opinion. A true multi-party Democracy (more than two or three major Parties) is the only way that all Americans can feel that their interests are being represented. You need more than two corrupt political Parties to represent the needs and interests of a diverse group of 300 million people. No other major industrialized Democracy has that kind of Party ratio in terms of political representation. You only see that kind of ratio in dictatorships and communist Countries. Voters need choice when they go to the polls… they have had to choose between the Demon and the Devil for too long. Until there are fundamental changes to this Countries political landscape…. nothing will fundamentally change in the lives of Americans.

Special Comment From Keith Olbermann - Ferraro, Clinton & Race Baiting

The Texas Democratic Debate - The Verdict

Update: So, Who Won The Debate? Check The Results of the Daily Kos Poll.

*******************************************
My original Post-debate comments

As expected... the corporate media did its best to help Hillary Clinton tonight, but there was no doubt who came away looking better after this debate.

The bottom line is, Clinton needed a knockout victory in this debate to help halt Obama's momentum going into March 4th. But she came up short. In fact, she didn't even score a knockdown, let alone the knockout blow that she needed.

Obama, on the other hand, was polished tonight. He gave one of the best debate performances to date, and it came at a time when he really needed to look good, particularly for voters in Texas and Ohio. Going into the debate, Obama needed to hold his own. But he went above and beyond that tonight. Not only did he hold his ground, but he out maneuvered Clinton, and looked very Presidential in the process.
If by some miracle he wins Texas, his campaign staff will have to look back at this debate as a crucial moment.

Obama had a response for every attack and cheap shot that Clinton threw his way. She continued with the same tired "experience" argument... the same "day one" nonsense that has not worked for weeks. You would think her campaign handlers would have revamped her message by now. Obama was ready for everything she had...which, as it turns out, was nothing new.

Also, when asked about the delegate debacle, Hillary lied and claimed that she was "not worried about that"... that it was no big deal to her. Yet, at this very moment, her operatives are scheming, hoping to take the nomination by underhanded means (if they can). So it's obviously a big issue for her.

The best part?

When the crowd responded with Booos to Hillary Clinton's arrogant attack in which she claimed that Obama's theme of "Change You Can Believe In" really stood for "Change That You Can Xerox". That attack pertained to Obama's use of words that were previously used by Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts and a friend of Obama's....as well as being the Co-Chair of Obama's National Campaign. It was Patrick who suggested that Obama use the line.

The media attempted to help Clinton by grossly overplaying what was probably her only strong moment in the debate - when she offered conciliatory comments in the last 20 seconds of the program. Sheila Jackson Lee (yet another CBC Clinton supporter) and the boneheaded pundits from MSNBC and CNN claimed that this was a "glorious moment" for Clinton and suggested that this was where she won the debate. They claimed that the comments drew a standing ovation. WRONG! The standing ovation came because it was the end of the debate. STOP THE LYING AND HYPERBOLE! This is not journalism or first rate reporting. It's infotainment run amuck. All of the spin is enough to give you motion sickness.

Below is a live blog roundup of the debate, taken from the BaltimoreSun.com (Read from the bottom up)

LIVE BLOG: THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE IN AUSTIN

By Lisa Anderson

GOOD EVENING!

The stakes couldn't be higher in Austin, Texas tonight as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama go one-on-one in a Democratic presidential debate sponsored by CNN and airing at 7 PM (CST).

I am blogging for you from my post in New York City, while my colleagues in Austin cover the action on the ground in the Longhorn State.

The crucial, delegate-rich Texas and Ohio primaries are coming up on March 4 and new Washington Post-ABC News polls show the two candidates locked in a Texas tie, while Clinton of New York shows a narrow lead in Ohio over her Senate colleague from Illinois.

Tonight's debate represents their first face-off since their meeting in Hollywood on Jan. 31. They will have only one more planned televised debate--February 26 on MSNBC--before what are shaping up as very close contests in Texas and Ohio.

Clinton, who has lost the last 10 state primaries and caucuses to Obama, desperately needs to win, and win big. To do that, she must use this debate to convince voters that she truly is not only tough enough and experienced enough for the nation's top job, but diplomatic enough to overcome the polarizing image that dogs her.

Obama, who has been on an impressive roll, wants to keep that roll going through the next big contests and beyond. To do that, he must effectively counter Clinton's charges that "the best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action." Or, in Texas parlance, that he's all hat and no cattle. And, he must avoid getting lost in the verbal weeds when talking about policy.

Given what has transpired in the last three weeks, it will be interesting to see if the sarsaparilla sweetness that drenched the last encounter between these two will continue or if they are now locked and loaded for a showdown tonight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

9:55 pm--LET'S AGREE THAT WE REALLY DO AGREE

While they may have been trying to draw more sharply the differences between them, Clinton and Obama Thursday night succeeded more in showcasing the similarities in their positions.

As hard as they tried to elbow each other, more often than not they ended up saying that they "agreed" with each other.

Given the fact that polls show them deadlocked in Texas and extremely close in Ohio--the next two big primaries on March 4--there seemed to be little in this debate that promised to significantly shift those numbers.

Neither candidate stumbled and both got off some good lines. Some of Clinton's best lines, in fact, were her last and, indeed, she got the very last word in the debate.

Before Texans and Ohioans vote, Obama and Clinton will have one more televised go at each other during the MSNBC debate next Tuesday.

Thank you for joining me tonight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

9:45pm--ONE MORE QUESTION.......

What was the moment that tested you the most, the candidates are asked.

Obama notes he was raised by a single mom, made mistakes in his youth but learned to "take responsibility" not only for his own actions but how to help others. His cumulative experience as a community organizer and attorney,he said, is what helps him to lead and bring people togetrher.

Said Clinton, wryly, "Well I think everybody here knows" I've had some challenges in my life." The audience laughs. But, she said, nothing she has been through is as tough as some of the things she's seen, including badly wounded soldiers coming home from Iraq.."The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on everyday" in the lives of people around the country.

No matter what happens, she said of herself and Obama, "We're going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and firends. I just hope we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people and that's what this election should be about."

Obama appeared to open his mouth to add something, but Campbell Brown abruptly ended the debate .

To his credit, Obama nonethless, graciously held Clinton's chair as she rose to leave. She smiled. After all, she had the last word.

And that was that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

9: 36pm--MUM'S THE WORD

The subject is secrecy. Obama is asked by CNN's John King why he has not disclosed what earmarks he has proposed in the budget. Not true, Obama said. He brushed the question away with a promise that he'd get the info for King asap. "I've been consistently in favor of more disclosure about earmarks," he said, making sure they are "not done in the dark of night" and will push for that when he's president.

Clinton says she's going to get us back to "fiscal responsibility," and did we mention middle-class tax cuts, college affordability and universal healthcare? On those counts, she said, she's more than a match for anything McCain can throw at her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

9:30pm--IS THE SURGE WORKING?

Surge or no surge, Clinton will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of her inauguration and make the Iraqis get serious about carrying their own water.

Obama admits that violence has been reduced in Iraq since the surge began surging. "But, this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder," he said. Moreover, he said, it will be easier for the candidate opposed to Iraq from the beginning to debate and draw a contrast with John McCain. The Arizona senator and presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Obama said, has indicated the U.S. may have troops in Iraq for 100 years.

Time for another commercial break.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------

9:22 pm--WHO'S MORE READY TO LEAD?

Clinton quickly assures the questioner that she's the one who's ready on Day One-- then insists on getting back to her healthcare answer which was so rudely interrupted.

Obama points out that Massachusetts, which has a universal healthcare plan, has had to exempt 20 percent of the uninsured in the state because they simply could not pay for insurance, despite the threat of fines.

Clinton says programs like Social Security and Medicaid would never have worked had everyone not been obliged to contribute. The same thing for universal healthcare, she said. "I want universal healthcare," she added, verbally stamping her feet.

Campbell Brown struggles to get them back to the leadership question.

Clinton launches into another litany of her accomplishments, including serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Just this week," she pointed out, we had elections in Pakistan..change of government in Cuba, independence in Kosovo and our embassy in Serbia set on fire. "When you think about everything that is going to happen...I believe I am prepared and ready on Day One to be the commander in chief, to be the president...And that is what I'm putting forth to the voters."

'I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief," Obama countered. He stresses that he will use the military wisely and harks back to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

By opposing the war, he said, "I believe I showed the judgment to be commander in chief and Sen. Clinton was wrong in her judgment." In fact, he basically said, he has shown the best judgment in almost everything. So there--again.

-------------------------------------------------------------

9:09 pm--HEALTHCARE REDUX

Obama stresses that he and Clinton agree that everybody needs healthcare, they just want to get there in different ways. He says he knows that everyone wants healthcare, but not everyone can afford it and that's why he thinks mandatory insurance is not the way to go.

Clinton opens her mouth, raises her hand and clearly is dying to respond--but Campbell Brown cuts her off to go to commericial....If Clinton's smile gets any tighter she'll need the Jaws of Life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

9:01 pm--"COPYCAT?"

Asked about the charge that he plagarized a speech from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Obama scoffed. "The notion that I stole the line from someone who is my national co-chair, who gave me the line, is silly," he said, saying the "silly season" has set in.

Clinton swooped in like a raptor . "If your candidacy is going to be about words, they should be your own words," she snapped Then, she came in for the kill, "Lifting passages from someone else's speeches isn't change you can believe in, it's Xeroxing," she said, to a chorus of boos.

------------------------------------------------------

8:50 --THEY'RE BAAAACK...

John King asks them about the difference between their jabs at each other on the stump and c the cordiality on display so far tonight,
He asks Clinton if she things Obama is all hat and no cattle. She says she thinks the next president will have to be less hat and more cattle, without commenting directly on Obama's haberdashery or livestock.
However, she stresses "there are differences between our records and our experiences." She notes nastily that one of Obama's surrogates was tongue-tied recently when asked to name one of his accomplishments.

"I think actions do speak louder than words," Obama shot back and began listing all the great things he accomplished in his political career so far, both in the Illinois legislature and in the U.S. Senate.

"I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in how change comes about," he said, noting he's been endorsed by every major newspaper in the state of Texas. He said his rival has implied that "somehow they've been duped" and have yet to see the reality of things.

You need more than policy positions to govern, he said pointedly You also need to inspire.

------------------------------------------------------------

8:48--ENGLISH FOR ALL?

Both Obama and Clinton agree--yes again--that everyone should learn to speak English in America, although bilingual education is an important aid in that effort.
Obama also wants English speaking children to learn other languages.

So far, a bit sharp elbowing at the top, but mostly they seem to agree on just about everything--except who should be president....

Commercial Break...

-----------------------------------------------------------

8:43 pm--ON THE (BORDER) FENCE

Clinton said the U. of Texas at Brownsville would wind up with part of its campus cut off by the proposed border fence with Texas, calling some of these plans absurd. "There may be some places where a physical barrier is appropriate" but as with so much the "Bush administration has gone off the deep end," she said.
"There is technology than can be used instead of a physical barrier," Clinton said, noting that the views of the people who live along the border should be heard.

Obama said, "Well, this is an area where Sen. Clinton and I almost totally agree." Clinton nodded her head and smiled slightly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

8:35 pm--IMMIGRATION

Asked if the canadidates would stop raids on illegal immigrants--a huge issue in Texas--Clinton emphasized a more humane approach that keeps parents from being ripped suddenly from their children and that would establish a path to citizenship.
Obama agreed and added that it is "absolutely critical" that we tone down the rhetoric in the immigration debate that leads to discrimination. He also wants to institute comprehensive reform that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers but doesn't make the path to legal citizenship so expensive and difficult that people are discouraged from trying.

----------------------------------------------------------------

8:25 pm--ECONOMICS 101--AGAIN

Obama said he and Clinton agree on many economic issues, the question is "how to get it done?"

A priority must be to overcome the influence of special interests, he said, noting that's an area where he thought he and Clinton slightly diverge.
Clinton also agreed that they agree on a number of things, including adjusting the tax code to help the middle class. Clinton launched into a litany of all the other things she would do, such as creating new "green jobs," put people to work rebuilding the infrastructure and "end George Bush's war on science."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

8:15 pm--LIFE POST-FIDEL

Clinton says she's ready to work with a new Cuban government and "make it very clear if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people" the U.S. will work with them.

Obama said he's ready to meet with the next leader of Cuba--with preparation and an agenda--saying the US should talk not just with its friends. This is where he got into trouble on another occasion, when Hillary jumped him, insinuating he was naive for saying he would talk to any leader without condition.
This time he seemed to side-step that, but Clinton wouldn't let him off the hook that easily. "There has been this difference between us about when the president should offer a meeting, without conditions....," she said, stressing that while the unilateral arrogance of the Bush administration is over, prudence is also in order.
Obama reiterated that "preparation is important," but said the president must take a more active role in diplomacy than in the past.
So there.

-------------------------------------------------------------

8:03 pm--AND THEY'RE OFF

Obama won the coin toss and opted to go second with his opening statement, so Clinton has begun with a chat about her happy memories of the Longhorn State, about how Rep. Barbara Jordan and Gov. Ann Richards were such inspirations to her. Then she launched into how she has pioneered health care for children and families and will continue to do that in the White House. She heartily invited the people of Texas and Ohio to help her "continue to make a difference" for Americans.

Obama, in his turn, assured the audience that he and Clinton were friends before this campaign and will be friends when it's over. Then he talked about how he has encountered families whose mortgages have doubled, people who work two jobs and can't afford health care, communities devastated by jobs shipped overseas. And families whose loved ones have been lost in "a war I believe never should have been authorized." Zing into Clinton, who smiled tightly but looked taken aback.
"Washington is a place where good ideas go to die," Obama said, because "too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than" resolving differences to get things done.

So, the gloves are off from the get-go tonight.

Discussion about the GOP and the General Election

On Point Radio offers great analysis of the Republican Party and its chances for winning the November election.

They really hit the nail on the head with their view of Democratic vulnerabilities (Hillary Clinton), and how the Dems could lose, even when all indications suggest that they should win.

Listen Here

New Magazine on Poverty and Inequality

Hat tip to the Education and Class blog for this information.

Stanford University's Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality is publishing a new magazine devoted to socio-economic issues. Pathways Magazine: A Magazine on Poverty, Inequality, and Social Policy was just published and there you will find articles by John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton on how they would alleviate poverty. Rebecca Blank writes an article comparing and critiquing the candidates’ platforms.

Particularly telling is this quote from Rebecca Blank's article:

How do the candidates stack up on their antipoverty proposals? If you’re a Republican, there’s really only one candidate who expresses consistent concern with these issues. That’s John McCain. For the other Republicans, poor Americans appear to be out of sight, out of mind, and off the agenda.

The magazine is available for free can be downloaded in PDF Format for no charge.

The Racialicious blog breaks down the candidate comparisons point by point.

Democrats Divided: NOW in PBS

I watched a fascinating segment in NOW on PBS that detailed the struggle within the Democratic Party between Progressives represented by bloggers such as Matt Stoller of OpenLeft who believe establishment Democrats have sold out traditional Democratic values and Centrists which are represented by politicians such as Bill Clinton who in the 90s sought to position the party to attract conservative voters. The struggle was framed along the lines of the contest in Maryland between incumbent Congressman Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards.

From the NOW web site:

In Maryland, six-term incumbent Al Wynn is facing a tough challenge from newcomer Donna Edwards. According to Edwards, Wynn has sold out to big business and the Bush agenda, including a vote for the war in Iraq and the 2005 energy bill. Wynn says his challenger is naive and doesn't understand that there are choices in politics between compromise and doing nothing. Fueling candidates like Edwards are the foot soldiers of the progressive battle—bloggers and other political outsiders like Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com who are drumming up national support on the Internet. Maria Hinojosa speaks with the candidates and Matt Bai, author of The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle To Remake Democratic Politics.

Although NOW is usually spot-on in its analysis, I couldn't help but be bothered by how the show framed the struggle as between Progressives who seek to move the party Leftwards and Centrists who seek to move it to the Center. The language being used--"left," "center," etc. are meaningless to me except as a shorthand way to describe the ideological character of the opposing sides. But this has an effect of pigeonholing both sides and reducing the struggle to one that is mainly about ideology.

Progressives who are frustrated with the Democratic Party usually do so not because of ideological disagreement but because the Democratic party has disappointed them on concrete issues such as: the Iraq war, NAFTA and other free-trade agreements, welfare reform, and that many Congressional Democrats routinely vote with the Republicans on key pieces of legislation. It's partly about ideology but it is moreso about does the Democratic Party truly represent their interests anymore?

Given such a situation, a Progressive Democrat has a choice to make: try to change the Democratic Party from within or go outside the party and become an Independent or a third-party advocate. The struggle presented in NOW illustrated the efforts of folks who chose to go the first route. Personally I have chosen to go the second route. However, I fully realize that the outcome of the internal struggle within the Democratic Party has implications for politics that will be wide-ranging.

The NOW web site has a few excellent links to several resources including a video of the segment, a guide to Progressive and Centrist Democrats, and a thoughtful response to Matt Bai's book.

The Clinton Coronation Ceremony Continues

The coronation of Hillary Clinton continues, despite a recent Zogby Poll that questions her electability. The Poll shows Clinton trailing in a General Election matchup with leading Republicans. I agree that there were flaws in this poll, however, the results should not be totally discounted, especially since the respondents were "likely voters". Furthermore, the sample for the Zogby poll was quite large, nearly 10,000 people- or 10 times the size of the typical poll (in the 700-1200 range). Typical polls tend to gauge the sentiments from the "man on the street"- those who are chosen on a random basis. Often many of these respondents are not actual voters.

Also, see more on Clinton's mud slinging claim.

Democrats Take Big Stage At Iowa Fundraising Dinner

The Democratic Presidential Candidates gathered In Iowa for a major fundraising event past this weekend. The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is one of the major events of the Iowa campaign season.

Below are the speeches from John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. According to observers, Barack Obama scored points at the event. John Edwards also did very well.

John Edwards Beginning to Distinguish Himself From Hillary Clinton

John Edwards has recently come out against a blanket program, supported by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. It is clear that Clinton doesn't understand the possible security risks involved in such a plan, let alone the fact that it helps to support illegal immigration. Clinton's program would also go against the Real ID program.

Now we could consider some sort of special license for guest workers and students, but it should be tied to their visas. And I could support the idea as part of a comprehensive immigration reform plan. An actual New York drivers license establishes legal residency and gives an illegal immigrant access to all sorts of services, including airports, financial services, etc.

I guess Hillary has forgotten how the immigration system and domestic services were exploited by Terrorists in the months and years before 9/11. Would the lack of official State ID prevent another 9/11? Probably not. But the idea is to provide as many layers or barriers as possible to prevent another major attack. Perhaps tight ID rules would provide another opportunity for terror suspects to be disrupted or caught. The Clinton/Spitzer program has all sorts of ramifications, both domestically and on the international front.

Most Americans are clearly opposed to such an idea...and Edwards may have given himself a boost by making his position clear. And he was careful not to say that he was not open to other workable alternatives or that he was against immigrants or immigration (As Republicans so often do). Some criticize Edwards and say that he flip flopped on this issue because he supported something different in 2004, however, that is not flip flopping in my opinion. Several years have passed and things change over time. Edwards is evolving as good politicians have always done. Showing the ability to evolve and change over long periods is a sign of a smart politician who can adapt to new realities and to the needs and concerns of the people they serve. Flip flopping on the other hand is someone who says one thing and within a few weeks or months says something completely different...trying to respond to opinion polls.

Here are a few other issues where Edwards is beginning to distinguish himself from Clinton.

I don't really care for either Party... I see both as evils. Choosing from the current pack for independents involves making the least painful choice.
But I would love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket....although Obama has pretty much stated that he wasn't interested in the VP spot.

Recent John Edwards Ad

Democratic Race Tightening in Iowa

Watch Related Video (Courtesy of Errington Thompson)

(The recent Iowa Poll was taken before the Philly Debate).

And The Public Is Finally Taking Notice of John Edwards. Edwards seems to have had some impact in the recent Debate in Philadelphia.



See Daily Kos Entry Edwards To Clinton: "No More Politics of Doublespeak".

Another Look At The Democratic Debate In Philly

Hear a great analysis of Tuesdays Democratic Debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Is there a chink in Hillary's armor? Some think so. The On Point Radio program digs a little deeper and comes up with some interesting possibilities.

Some of the panelists believe that Edwards looked good on Tuesday and that Tuesdays event could be seen as a more defining moment in the campaign. Others believe that the other candidates did not do enough.

Jack Beatty was bothered by poll numbers that indicate that the public is beginning to support war with Iran. It looks like Bush & Co.'s war propaganda (and fear) machine is starting to reap some benefits for the neocons. We are seeing a replay of the kind of PR that took place before the invasion of Iraq. It appears that Bush & Co. is dead set on a military conflict with Iran and they are simply attempting to sell it to the public... But I don't believe that the American public really understands all of the consequences of an attack on Iran.

The debate focuses on the fact that Hillary Clinton does not stand by her decisions, and she can't seem to take a solid position on any major subject. Yet, she somehow remains the media's choice. The panel seems to suggest that Hillary should not get too comfortable. I am personally losing hope that any other candidate will have a chance, considering that she has been annointed as the media's preferred candidate. Other candidates are not getting equal time, yet they are critized by some of the pundits for not have substance of for not challenging Hillary. Perhaps if the media would share the camera and the mic... perhaps the other candidates would be able to compete.

The debate also drew respectable ratings for MSNBC.

Guests

· Julie Mason, national political correspondent, The Houston Chronicle
· Joe Klein, columnist for Time magazine and author of "Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid"
· Harold Jackson, editorial page editor, The Philadelphia Inquirer
· Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst and senior editor at The Atlantic Monthly

Listen To Program